chess problems

Chess Problems

Grant and you will uncover!
Crazy name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
rocksham 28 ( +1 | -1 )
IQ & Chess I am interested to find out if a players IQ is at all comparable to their rating.
Do the higher ranked players have a higher IQ?
Has such a survey been carried out before?
Does anybody know of GM's IQ?
To start the ball rolling my IQ is 143 and I am currently around 1770 & hopefully still improving.
leo_london 14 ( +1 | -1 )
This link is quite interesting..
-> www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk
tugger 48 ( +1 | -1 )
indeed it is leo...

only apparantly the average person in terms of iq would have an elo rating of 2000...

i would jump on the oppurtunity to say that would place you amongst the average, but then i would also have to accept that would make me stupid...!

unfortunately, like the bragging brummie i am, i know i'm not stupid...

for the sake of this thread, my iq is 134 and gk elo currently just over 1700, though averaging around 1740, which i consider to be the true rating...
chilliman 8 ( +1 | -1 )
an excellent link leo!
kansaspatzer 32 ( +1 | -1 )
I think that most people who claim they know their IQs took one of those online tests, but those tests automatically inflate your scores so you'll buy a report. I heard that some people clicked through one of those tests and clicked random answers, and got something around 130 as an IQ.
thunker 45 ( +1 | -1 )
Way back in the "old'n days" I was told our whole class had been tested in public schools on one of those "standardized tests." The teacher told us we could all go to the main office and see our IQ scores, but warned us that some might not like what they see!
So I've always been afraid to know my IQ. I figure if I just do the best I can, that's IQ enough for me...

More ideas on the issue:
-> www.chesscafe.com
ganstaman 145 ( +1 | -1 )
First, I wonder who voted to keep this thread in the gk section since it clearly belongs elsewhere.

Second, there is this somewhat more complete quote than tugger alluded to:
"Elo ~ (10 x IQ) + 1000
The meaning of the ‘~’ symbol can be taken as ‘given many years of intense effort, will tend to equal approximately’. That is to say that a player with an IQ of Y, after many years of tournament play and study will tend to have a chess Elo rating of about 10Y + 1000. "

I could believe this, as it is also consistent with the idea that genetics/developmental factors set the limits of your chess ability and then your environment/how hard you work determine where exactly your ELO is.

Third, I've taken IQ tests online and in school (not sure why exactly) and have gotten basically the same score all around. However, the test isn't exactly the most precise, so variability is to be expected.

Finally, posting our own numbers here could be fun, but pointless from a scientific/statisitical viewpoint, unless all or even most of gameknot responded (sample size is too small otherwise). Even then, there could be some bias due to all of us being members of this site, therefore not necessarily representative of the general chess playing population (perhaps there is some other factor that drove us all to correspondence chess, etc).

But interesting, nonetheless (by the way, why isn't that 3 separate words??).
fmgaijin 54 ( +1 | -1 )
Answering Only G's LAST Question They once WERE three separate words, but through the miracle of compounding a
"set phrase" sometimes gets turned into a single word either hyphenated (e.g. the phrase "run-of-the-mill") or not (e.g., "nevertheless"). None of these phrases, however, has yet disintegrated to the extent of "goodbye" ("God be with ye") or "howdy" ("How do you do?")

P.S. Only an individually-administered S-B test has much accuracy, and even then it measures only a few dimensions of intelligence. My scores on standardized IQ tests (not online ones) have ranged by as much as 30 points, and no, I'm not posting my scores here.
yanm 62 ( +1 | -1 )
I was wondering I was wondering if IQ has a real meaning. For instance, I was told that high IQ means better learning capabilities thus better skills (roughly). But think about the following situation. Given N minutes, person X performs much better than person Y at IQ test but if both are given more time (say 2N minutes) then person Y performs much better than person X. So, if both are given proper training and education who of X or Y will turn out to be more skilled??

By the way, this small example can also roughly accounts for the differences between OTB chess (N minutes) and correspondence chess (2N minutes)...
ganstaman 48 ( +1 | -1 )
I think I posted this before, but it's been a while and it's relevant again, I think.

-> www.psych.utoronto.ca

fmgaijin : Interesting word history trivia. I had no idea goodbye actually meant something more than what any other word means.
leo_london 33 ( +1 | -1 )
ganstaman.. " First, I wonder who voted to keep this thread in the gk section since it clearly belongs elsewhere."

I must plead guilty to that. Following the other thread deletions, I just posted a vote to keep it up and running..mine was the first vote cast, I did not give any thought to where it was most appropriate.
rocksham 27 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks Thanks to Leo, Ganstaman and Thunker for all those very interesting links.
I have taken an IQ test on 3 seperate occasions
1. School 36yrs ago
2. From a book about 20yrs ago
3. On-line test about 4yrs ago

The scores amazed me with there consistency 143 143 142
kewms 67 ( +1 | -1 )
I notice only the people with above average IQ scores are posting theirs...

Actually, chessplayers are probably self-selected for above average IQ. And the further above average you are, the less accurate IQ tests become.

There's lots of evidence suggesting that IQ tests don't actually predict anything except ability to do well on IQ tests. Once you correct for environmental factors, high IQ doesn't correlate to success in medicine, mathematics, physics, or any other "brain power driven" field. So why would it correlate to success in chess?

No, I'm not going to post my own IQ score. I'll just say that I'm a living example of the inaccuracy of the proposed IQ-Elo correlation.

Katherine
ketchuplover 2 ( +1 | -1 )
My IQ & rating are identical :)
fmgaijin 45 ( +1 | -1 )
Support for K's Hypothesis My father, a rather famous plant geneticist with publications, patents, and honors galore, always claimed that his IQ was 119, which would have made his the lowest in the family (wife and five children). That would have put him in the lower echelons of university professors (who average about 140) and, if he were telling the truth, his example would support your assessment of the danger of trying to extrapolate much from a raw IQ score.
ganstaman 83 ( +1 | -1 )
I would suggest reading my link, as it talks about how measuring IQ is actually measuring your intelligence in all areas. I know there's still debate about this, but it presents that side of the debate well, IMO. And it even has some pretty graphs!

Like I mentioned earlier, just looking at a small sample size is pointless from a statistical standpoint. So fmgaijin, your story about your father is interesting but not at all suggestive of anything. He's one man. There are exceptions and variety everywhere. The idea isn't that we can predict anything with much accuracy about any given individual, but instead that we can predict things with more accuracy about a group of individuals. That is, guess the average IQ of plant geneticists or guess the most common occupation of those with an IQ of 119.
mfeeney93 57 ( +1 | -1 )
How bad do you want it? While I believe IQ is certainly a relevant factor, I believe hard work and dedication to improving your chess game is the most important.

I have an above average IQ but I enjoy chess for the momentary mental challenge and diversion. Hence, I tend to play quickly and will miss better moves that come from taking more time to analyze (and chess study).

However, I am confident that if I decided on a course of action for chess study and improving my game, my rating would improve significantly. (How much? I don't know.)
kewms 101 ( +1 | -1 )
One of the most interesting things about ganstaman's link was the observation that the top 5% is defined by an IQ of "only" 125, while everyone who has posted here claims a significantly higher score.

It may very well be true that people with IQs above 125 are significantly better chess players than people with IQs below 75 (the bottom 5%). If that weren't the case, IQ testing would be pretty much worthless.

Claiming that a player with an IQ of 145 is necessarily better than one with an IQ of 125, or worse than a player with an IQ of 165, seems to be much less justifiable to me. Since all three players are intellectually capable, I would think factors like hard work would become more important. I also don't know how accurate standard IQ tests are in distinguishing among people at either extreme of the distribution. Usually, the accuracy of a statistical measure goes down as the sample gets smaller, so the middle of the bell curve is measured more accurately than the ends.
daverundle 33 ( +1 | -1 )
Not sure about IQ test apparently i am a genius!! That alone makes me question how the results are measured!!! I have taken 3 test (none on line) and all of them give me an IQ of around 166 which apparently is quite high what surprises me all the test were completed by people who were not trying to sell me something!!
ionadowman 78 ( +1 | -1 )
Statistics... ...is an interesting but very slippery branch of mathematics. If it were not, politicians would have less recourse to it.
You will probably find some correlation between chessplaying ability and measured intelligence (IQ), but rather less between IQ and chessplaying ability. The first pairing assumes that the "population" being tested comprises chessplayers only (what is a chessplayer, then?). The second assumes all humanity (for a given value of "all" - probably comprises "testable" people only). There's a whole lot of really bright people out there who don't play the game at all.
What is a chessplayer? One who has learned the rules, one who plays at least 'n' times per unit time, one who has at least played one tournament game...? Perhaps we are looking solely at tournament players?
As for Jon Levitt's 'formula' ... mmm ... Nah!
Cheers,
Ion
echo3 41 ( +1 | -1 )
It is interesting... ... For instance, my IQ is 152 (as ratified by MENSA) but when I am tested on individual aspects of intelligence such as abstract, verbal, numerical, logical reasoning etc I get above average on all except abstract which I score below average. My ELO is about 1470 at the moment but I believe this is about 200 over where I should be.

Clearly my lack of abstract reasoning hurts my ability to "visualize" chess moves in advance.
katonah 64 ( +1 | -1 )
It is interesting but no doubt related to genetics that my father is leo_london. Being that as it may I have a IQ of 65 as measured by British Mensa. So IQ and chess maybe linked as Bobby Fischers IQ was supposedly well over 180 and closer to 200 or over? Many famous GM's have been mathematicians, musicians, and have had success in other endeavors outside of chess. But of course their are exceptions, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Korchnoi, to name a few. Of GK's resident geniuses, Florinserban has more degrees then the Fahrenheit or Celsius scale!!
bunta 19 ( +1 | -1 )
Ive seen it before I have an IQ of 146 or so, wow that means my max rating will be 2460 according to that an IM title, but my rating here averages somewhere in the 1700-1800 range. Kasparov's IQ was somewhere near 180
honololou 6 ( +1 | -1 )
after reading these posts… I vote to reassign this thread to the narcissism forum.
peppe_l 52 ( +1 | -1 )
* One of the most interesting things about ganstaman's link was the observation that the top 5% is defined by an IQ of "only" 125, while everyone who has posted here claims a significantly higher score. *

kewms, this is internet. That means we all are 2 meters tall, look like Fabio, earn 100.000+ USD/euros per year, own at least two Mercs or BMWs...and of course, have really high IQ. Not to doubt anyone, of course!

Perhaps we should collectively write a book titled "I Could Have Been a Grandmaster, parts 1-550" ;-)
fmgaijin 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Dang, only 1.9 m tall . . . . . . only an FM, and so on.

"Close, but no cigar," as in Weird Al's latest album.
danders 38 ( +1 | -1 )
I've noticed that IQ tests largely measure one's capacity for spatial recognition, and they are timed. I've also noticed that chess is largely about spatial recognition, and it is also timed.

Of COURSE chess and IQ are going to correlate in some manner. They are measured in similar terms. Of course, maybe I'm just nuts, but there's my wooden nickel's worth.
sf115 15 ( +1 | -1 )
You don't get IQ from playing chess. Chess players are just clever intellegent people. John Nunn got £250,000 on "Who wants to be a millionaire," a quiz show.
danders 10 ( +1 | -1 )
sf115 You don't 'get' IQ from playing quiz shows or taking tests, either. What is your point?
caro-kann 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Most interesting that I have an IQ of 125 or so (done in a MENSA book), yet I'm not really good at chess. However, I do agree with the online tests raising your scores to get a report, seeing as I was bored and for some fun I deliberately got everything wrong and got an IQ of 90!!!!

sf115 9 ( +1 | -1 )
danders If you are good at chess, you are usally quite clever so you will do well on quiz shows
ccmcacollister 179 ( +1 | -1 )
Something is rotten in Denmark(?!) ... Well, so I've been told. Personally I cant see it. But what concerns me is far worse. Until there is an official Championship, I've declared myself the World Champion "Folder of little blue lines into varous little blue shapes & boxes"
{I've never 'missed one' and no one has ever finished or gotten to page 2 first. So until I hear a better claim, there it stands ... and I AM biased about such claims, so you'll want to send em to Guiness ... at least until I meet my Morphy of blue-boxes}
But I've Lost Chess Games! {Yes, its true ... I'm not joking. In fact, More than One Chess game, from Both sides of the board. So it is pretty sad :((( }
What shall I do?! }B-D
***
Aside from that ... I have noticed several different types of Chess playing, as well as several different types of Thinking in general. There seem to be those who are very fast(like "RPM), but lack the 'torque' to solve some things. Others who might be quite slow(lower RPM), but given sufficient time might solve pretty much anything(high torque). And between extremes pretty much falls everyone else, with Grandmasters having the highest horsepower of all (torque times RPM) and usually are among those who have highest torques and RPMs at the same time. Of course corr. Chess is a torquers' game, and blitz an RPM'ers game, for the most part. (Yet a torquer playing blitz at the end of a timecontrol is much deadlier than at a pure blitz game. They've already Looked at Everything!)
Yet all and all, regardless of horsepower, it seems that Memory, both longterm and expecially short term, is essential and imo more important than pure solvability. Would that be like having a Road Map ... or what??
}8-)
magna68 10 ( +1 | -1 )
dang The IQ of this thread is about 25. Actually ccmcacollister's post makes most sense to me here.:-)
sf115 5 ( +1 | -1 )
idiots aren't very good at chess
ccmcacollister 74 ( +1 | -1 )
Well it did just occur to me ... (call it a case of Low RPM :)
That I do not think I know a Chess Master who would not qualify for Mensa, yet I know many in Mensa (95+%) who are not Chess Masters. And some Masters are much higher than that of course. But all in all , I still have to believe that work ethic is the most important determinant if certain levels of cognition and memory are present. And of many other types of mental capabilities actually. Yet when it comes down to it, one can be superb in all such capacities and be a terrible Chess player for but one matter of character or personality, such as impatience for instance. Or overconfidence, or timidity, or ....
There is simply a lot that goes into making a great player. Tho apparently a well applied bluetooth can plug some gaps . . . ?!?! :))